Sir Vivian Richards - master or myth?

[Richard]

Still more reliable than someone who's entire knowledge (or lack of) comes from a book.

There's pretty well no-one of that ilk.

 

[pasag]

Still more reliable than someone who's entire knowledge (or lack of) comes from a book.

Actually, if his entire knowledge came from a book, I'd listen to him more often.

 

[Richard]

It comes from so, so much more than one book.

 

[Swervy]

moderately great batsman like Richards

Moderately great....erm....how do you have moderately great. Is there a level below moderate but still within the category of 'Great'...like Poorly Great, decidedly average great, a total joke great????

 

[Goughy]

From a bowling point of view, I wouldnt want to bowl at Richards.

The way he batted made it difficult for bowlers to do what they wanted to do.

All bowlers want to work to a gameplan and get settled into their rhythm. Richards didnt allow that and he wrestled the initiative away from the bowling team and put them on the back foot.

Test cricket is a game of sessions and momentum and a player like Richards made contributions to the swing of games that cant be measured in numbers.

Now if he did that and averaged 35, I would readily admit he was an average player that had a useful aggressiveness.

However, to alter the mood and nature of games and put the bowlers and opposition captain of the backfoot whilst averaging over 50 is scary.

Its far deeper than a style thing and just rating him because he looked good or had a pleasing way of batting. Its to do with the fact that the way he batted changed the nature of games and was just as important as the volume of runs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Moderately great....erm....how do you have moderately great. Is there a level below moderate but still within the category of 'Great'...like Poorly Great, decidedly average great, a total joke great????

It goes like this from bottom to top:

Not quite great
Moderately great
Great
Supremely great
Greater than great love grows and Heaven holds a place for those who fool the tricks of time.
Don Bradman/Viv Richards/Garry Sobers

 

[Swervy]

It goes like this from bottom to top:

Not quite great
Moderately great
Great
Supremely great
Greater than great love grows and Heaven holds a place for those who fool the tricks of time.
Don Bradman/Viv Richards/Garry Sobers

you cant have not quite great in there I am afraid, because that isnt in the 'great' category. And also there needs to be something below moderate in the great category, because moderate implies 'average' or middle of the road...try again Thommo

 

[Lillian Thomson]

you cant have not quite great in there I am afraid, because that isnt in the 'great' category. And also there needs to be something below moderate in the great category, because moderate implies 'average' or middle of the road...try again Thommo

I don't think I'll bother somehow...............

 

[Swervy]

I don't think I'll bother somehow...............

yeah, dont blame ya

 

[Jono]

That surprises me ITBT. You've said in the past that you base a fair few of your judgements on statistics, yet there is a strong statistical case for alot of other batsman to be ranked ahead of Sir Viv Richards.

Not really, because with stats, you don't have to just look at the final picture.

Before Viv's decline, his statistics matched his reputation. He was averaging 60+ and looked damn good doing it dominating attacks like no one had seen before. The ultimate mix (something Sachin, Lara and Ponting have done in similarly recent times, but obviously not to such an extent).

Hence if you look at stats properly, it true shows how great Viv was. You didn't just have to see him to know how great he is, nor hear reports. His statistics do tell his dominance if looked at before age and lack of desire had an affect on him.

 

[Jono]

One thing that bugs me when people talk about Viv is how they talk about his lack of big scores, or excuse his record for not being much much better etc. on the basis that he got 'bored' and was so talented that he didn't need to prove anything.

Application is as much an attribute of a terrific batsman as other aspects such as 'aura', dominance of attacks, match-winning knocks, ability to turn a game, consistency etc. Viv lacked this, and that's because he's not perfect. Just like other batsman held in a similar high regard lacked certain characteristics, maybe the ability to dominant (such as Gavaskar) but made it up in other areas, Viv was not the best at going on with good starts.

I'd like to make clear I am in no way trying to denigrate Viv. If you look at my original post here, I would light up as a young kid when my dad would tell me how good he was, and how he's the best batsman he's ever seen. I rate him very very highly from what I've heard, seen and read, and I have him clearly in the top 5 batsman ever. But the whole 'he was bored' excuse is one thing Viv fans do which really irks me.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

One thing that bugs me when people talk about Viv is how they talk about his lack of big scores, or excuse his record for not being much much better etc. on the basis that he got 'bored' and was so talented that he didn't need to prove anything.

Application is as much an attribute of a terrific batsman as other aspects such as 'aura', dominance of attacks, match-winning knocks, ability to turn a game, consistency etc. Viv lacked this, and that's because he's not perfect. Just like other batsman held in a similar high regard lacked certain characteristics, maybe the ability to dominant (such as Gavaskar) but made it up in other areas, Viv was not the best at going on with good starts.

I'd like to make clear I am in no way trying to denigrate Viv. If you look at my original post here, I would light up as a young kid when my dad would tell me how good he was, and how he's the best batsman he's ever seen. I rate him very very highly from what I've heard, seen and read, and I have him clearly in the top 5 batsman ever. But the whole 'he was bored' excuse is one thing Viv fans do which really irks me.

I always say that Viv's the best after Bradman, I never use the "bored" argument. There were certainly times when he wasn't willing to play himself in and didn't show enough respect to bowlers, especially late in his career. His distain for Devon Malcolm certainly cost him in 1990. This is a flaw in his temperament and the main reason he averaged 50 instead of 65-70 and could be used as an argument for not rating him quite so highly.

 

[Richard]

One thing that bugs me when people talk about Viv is how they talk about his lack of big scores, or excuse his record for not being much much better etc. on the basis that he got 'bored' and was so talented that he didn't need to prove anything.

Application is as much an attribute of a terrific batsman as other aspects such as 'aura', dominance of attacks, match-winning knocks, ability to turn a game, consistency etc. Viv lacked this, and that's because he's not perfect. Just like other batsman held in a similar high regard lacked certain characteristics, maybe the ability to dominant (such as Gavaskar) but made it up in other areas, Viv was not the best at going on with good starts.

Best post TBH.

 

[Richard]

Moderately great....erm....how do you have moderately great. Is there a level below moderate but still within the category of 'Great'...like Poorly Great, decidedly average great, a total joke great????

Was nothing more than a piece of paraphrasing, but I did guess it might get a reaction out of you.

 

[JBMAC]

I always say that Viv's the best after Bradman, I never use the "bored" argument. There were certainly times when he wasn't willing to play himself in and didn't show enough respect to bowlers, especially late in his career. His distain for Devon Malcolm certainly cost him in 1990. This is a flaw in his temperament and the main reason he averaged 50 instead of 65-70 and could be used as an argument for not rating him quite so highly.

IMPO the best after Bradman was Headley,then Richards(Viv) then Richards(Barry)

 

[Richard]

IMPO the best after Bradman was Headley

Best post.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Best post.

It was actually a very good post in it's entirety, correctly having Viv and Barry Richards in his top 4.

 

[Son Of Coco]

It goes like this from bottom to top:

Not quite great
Moderately great
Great
Supremely great
Greater than great love grows and Heaven holds a place for those who fool the tricks of time.
Don Bradman/Viv Richards/Garry Sobers

 

[Richard]

Interesting, again, I've just had a better look at Richards' career than ever before - until now I'd simply presumed he'd averaged 53 for most of his career (first 104 Tests) then tailed-off a bit to average 35 at the very end (last 17).

The truth is, Richards had two, short, periods where he was an utter phenomena. Between 23 January and 8 August '76, he scored 1664 runs in 10 Tests; in 15 between December '79 and March '81 he scored 1454 in 15.

In the other 79 games that form the vast bulk of his career that matters, he scored 4596 at an average of 41.

The Richards story is more myth than anything, IM (newly formed) O. I couldn't care less whether he had some of the ability to average 70 in Tests, I couldn't care less whether boredom was the main reason he didn't. Fact is, he didn't have the ability to average more than the early 40s for most of his career, though he had two periods where he was indeed a sensation perhaps only once otherwise seen in cricket's history, something I'm sure any number of others have. Equally, some others have probably convinced the unwary that they should have been the-second.

Two short periods, 25 Tests in total, though, do not make a career. Yes, indeed, anyone who rates Richards 2nd-best batsman after Bradman simply does not understand the game of cricket.







(THAT LAST LINE WAS (for the most part) IN JEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just in case anyone was wondering)

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Interesting, again, I've just had a better look at Richards' career than ever before - until now I'd simply presumed he'd averaged 53 for most of his career (first 104 Tests) then tailed-off a bit to average 35 at the very end (last 17).

The truth is, Richards had two, short, periods where he was an utter phenomena. Between 23 January and 8 August '76, he scored 1664 runs in 10 Tests; in 15 between December '79 and March '81 he scored 1454 in 15.

In the other 79 games that form the vast bulk of his career that matters, he scored 4596 at an average of 41.

The Richards story is more myth than anything, IM (newly formed) O. I couldn't care less whether he had some of the ability to average 70 in Tests, I couldn't care less whether boredom was the main reason he didn't. Fact is, he didn't have the ability to average more than the early 40s for most of his career, though he had two periods where he was indeed a sensation perhaps only once otherwise seen in cricket's history, something I'm sure any number of others have. Equally, some others have probably convinced the unwary that they should have been the-second.

Two short periods, 25 Tests in total, though, do not make a career. Yes, indeed, anyone who rates Richards 2nd-best batsman after Bradman simply does not understand the game of cricket.

Nice attempt at provocation.........you came












































































































































































































almost this close to succeeding.